Unit 10 The Science of Custom.doc

Unit 10 The Science of CustomI. Learning objectives1. Learn to use definition in exposition (e.g. anthropology, custom, culture etc).2. Know something about anthropology, especially cultural determinism and cultural relativism in anthropological studies.II Teaching time: six class periodsIII Teaching Procedure: Step 1 Warm-up questions1. In Para. 1 the author starts exposition by mentioning some false ideas that people have about “custom”. What do people usually think about “custom”?2. What is the transitional expression to introduce the authors own concept on “custom”?3. What expository means that the author uses to explain what he thinks the meaning of “custom”?4. After a definition of “custom”, the author adds, “Yet that is a rather trivial aspect of the matter.” What does “that” refer” to?5. How would you comment on the function of the last sentence of the final paragraph? Examine the statement and decide how many aspects that we expect the author would elaborate?6. What is the difference between customs and language?7. Sum up the main ides of this paragraph. How is this paragraph related to the thesis statement?8. The author quotes John Dewey, a famous educator and philosopher, to explain the predominant influences customs exert on a person. Find the analogy and explain it. Does the general language pattern affect personal speech habits or the other way round?9. Sum up the role of customs discussed in Para. 2.10. How does the author explain the individual behavior it shaped by customs?11. The author says in the topic sentence that we have to accept certain “preliminary propositions”. What are “preliminary propositions” in authors mind?12. What criticism is implored in Para. 3?13. What is the normal method when we make research in natural science? In what way does natural science differ from social science? How has the study of man different from the study of less controversial subjects?14. How would you define “anthropology”?15. What criterion must be the anthropologist accepts before he can undertake the study of man objectively? How to make a study on custom?Step 2 Relevant information1. A discussion of the notion of cultureThe concept of culture has long been a hotly contested issue. Duranti (1997: 23-50) in her 1997 work Anthropological Linguistics makes a review of six theories of culture in which language plays a particularly important role. The first view of culture is that of something learned, transmitted, passed down from one generation to the next, through the human actions, either in face-to-face interaction or through linguistic communication. This view of culture as learned is often understood in opposition to the view of human behavior as a product from nature, hence the nature/nurture dichotomy. The second view is to interpret culture in terms of knowledge of the world. This does not only mean that members of a culture must know certain facts or be able to recognize objects, places, and people. It also means that they must share certain patterns of thought, ways of understanding the world, making inferences and predictions. The third view is the semiotic theory of culture that takes culture as communication, i.e., as a system of signs. In its most basic version, this view holds that culture is a representation of the world, a way of making sense of reality by objectifying it in stories, myths, descriptions, theories, proverbs, artistic products and performances. The fourth theory sees culture as a system of mediation. The common use of a language is believed to take place at the same level as the common use of all of the objects which surround us in the society in which we were born and in which we live. In this view, culture includes material objects such as the umbrella and ideational objects such as belief systems and linguistic codes. Both material and ideational structures are instruments through which humans mediate their relationship with the world. The fifth theory views culture as a system of practices. It emphasizes the fact that the human actor can culturally exist and function only as a participant in a series of habitual activities that are both presupposed and reproduced by his individual actions. Related to culture as a system of practices is the sixth theory, the idea of culture as a system of participation. It is based on the assumption that any action in the world, including verbal communication, has an inherently social, collective, and participatory quality. This notion of culture is particularly useful for looking at how language is used in the real world because to speak a language means to be able to participate in interactions with a world that is always larger than we as individual speakers, and even larger than what we can see and touch in any given situation. From these different theories of culture we can see that culture is a highly complex notion and a much contested ground. What is of particular relevance to our discussion of language and culture is that the concept of language is either explicitly or implicitly embedded in each of these theories of culture. However, the argument of this dissertation does not depend on affirming any one theory of culture presented here, but needs only to recognize that, whichever cultural theory we adopt, “language always play an important part” (ibid.: 49). -Rewritten by Chen Yan2. Culture relativismCultural relativism in anthropology is a key methodological concept which is universally accepted within the discipline. This concept is based on theoretical considerations which are key to the understanding of scientific anthropology as they are key to the understanding of the anthropological frame of mind. Cultural relativism is an anthropological approach which posit that all cultures are of equal value and need to be studied from a neutral point of view. The study of a and/or any culture has to be done with a cold and neutral eye so that a particular culture can be understood at its own merits and not another culture?s. Historically, cultural relativism has had a twin theoretical approach, historical particularism. This is the notion that the proper way to study culture is to study one culture in depth. The implications of cultural relativism and historical particularism have been significant to anthropology and to the social sciences in general.The roots of cultural relativism go to the rejection of the comparative school of the nineteenth century on the basis of exact and specific ethnological information. This information rejected the comparative school?s methodology and as a result its evolutionary conclusions. Furthermore, as the basis of cultural relativism is a scientific view of culture, it also rejects value judgments on cultures. There is, in this view, no single scale of values which holds true for all cultures and by which all culture can be judged. Beliefs, aesthetics, morals and other cultural items can only be judged through their relevance to a given culture. For example, good and bad in are culture specific and can not be imposed in cultural analysis. The reason for this view is, of course, that what is good in one culture may not be bad in an other. This indicates that every culture determines its own ethical judgments to regulate the proper behavior of its members. A result of this view is that it assumes that most individuals would prefer to live in the culture in which they have been enculturated. It must be added to the discussion above that the cultural in cultural relativism and historical particularism is about specific cultures and not about a more abstract, singular and general concept of culture.The reasoning behind all this comes from two distinct sources, one of them is the reaction to the inaccuracies of the evolutionary schemes of the comparative school, the other the desire to study culture from an objective value perspective. To be a scientific concept culture has to be studied as an object without evaluative consideration. When we are not able to do that we no longer have a science of culture. Some anthropologist associated with this point of view are France Boas and, his students, Alfred Kroeber, Robert Lowie, Melville Herskovits, Ruth Benedict, Paul Radin, Margaret Mead, Ruth Bunzel and many others. Franz Boas is the key theoretician in this group.Boas published his views on the comparative method in 1896. The article, The Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropology, was the first exposition of cultural relativism. According to the tenets of cultural relativism, there are no inferior or superior cultures; all cultures are equal. To order cultures in an evolutionary scheme is unfeasible. All premises of good and bad and/or upper and lower are culture bound and ethnocentric. Put that way, we can see that schemes of evolution are ethnocentric not objective.Here are four major limitations to the comparative method according to Boas: 1. It is impossible to account for similarity in all the types of culture by claiming that they are so because of the unity of the human mind. 2. The existence like traits in different cultures is not as important as the comparative school claims. 3. Similar traits may have developed for very different purposed in differing cultures. 4. The view that cultural differences are of minor importance is baseless. The differences between cultures are of major anthropological significance. Boas did not stop his critique of the comparative school at that point he also delineated a methodology to replace it. His new method emphasized the following: 1. Culture traits have to be studied in detail and within the cultural whole. 2. The distribution of a culture trait within neighboring cultures should also be looked at. This suggest that a culture needs to be analyzed within its full context.Boas thought that this approach would help the anthropologist (1) to understand the environmental factors that shape a culture, (2) to explain the psychological factors that frame the culture, and (3) to explain the history of a local custom. Boas was trying to establish the inductive method in anthropology and abandon the comparative method. Boas emphasized that the primary goal of anthropology was to study individual societies and that generalizations could come only on the basis of accumulated data. His importance within the discipline is that anthropology should be objective and inductive science. In an age when the scientific method was important, this change in the discipline resulted in the establishment of anthropology in universities. Boas? students were among the first to establish some of the most important anthropology programs on American campuses.A point which must be added to the above discussion is that Boas attacked racism throughout his career; he summarizes his views on racism in The Mind of Primitive Man (1911). According to Boas the sweep of cultures, to be found in association with any sub species, is so extensive that there can be no relationship between race and culture.Following Boas and his emphasis on studying as many societies as possible, Alfred Kroeber, the best known anthropologists of the period produced a good deal of ethnography. In his Eighteen Professions (1915), which is a credo, Kroeber affirms some of the basic tenets of cultural relativism: (1) all men are completely civilized, and (2) there are no higher and lower cultures. Much later in his career, Kroeber makes three additional points on cultural relativism, 1)that science should begin with questions and not with answers, 2)that science is a dispassionate endeavor which should not accept any ideology, and 3)that sweeping generalizations are not compatible with science. Another major cultural relativist of the period is Robert Lowie whose work is most significant among for cultural relativism.Lowie probably came closer to Boas views on the proper practice of anthropology than any other anthropologist of his time. He was deeply rooted in the philosophy of science and accepted cultural anthropology as a science. His views and criticism of theoreticians such as Morgan, are based on this scientific world view. His critique of Morgans evolutionary theory is based on epistemology. Namely, that Morgans evolutionary scheme of kinship had no proof. Furthermore, Morgan?s data was often erroneous. One of the most important practitioners of cultural relativism was Ruth Benedict.For Benedict cultural anthropology is the discipline that studies the differences between cultures. This approach is fully Boasian in character. In this approach the plural s that was added to culture by Boas and others, becomes crucial. The interest has now shifted from culture to cultures. The focus has shifted to a particular culture and what happens to the individual in that culture. Furthermore, a culture is integrated, and it is more than the sum of its parts. Every culture is different from other culture. Benedict takes the Boasian program a step ahead. She does this through the concept of cultural configurations or patterns. Although her use of this approached is extremely reductionistic it represents a new direction in cultural relativism by transcending the data collection of historical particularism and attempting to organize the data in an explanatory manner.The attempt to understand cultures at their own terms and the attempt to an objective ethnography are the major accomplishments of cultural relativism. These have sometimes led to a lack of theoretical depth and an undervaluation of the ethnographer?s own culture. However, the battle against ethnocentrism and the objective view of cultures remain permanent contributions of cultural relativism. Step 3 Organization of the textSection 1 (Para. 1-2): Introducing anthropologyPara. 1:Definition of anthropology: Anthropology is the study of human beings as creatures of society. Para. 2: The distinguishing mark of anthropology among the social sciences is that is includes for serious study other societies than our own Section 2 (Para. 3-5): Importance of studying custom and the proper approach to its study Para.3: Custom plays a predominant role in our experience and our belief, and it manifests itself in a great variety of ways.Para. 4: The role of custom in shaping the behavior of the individual: No man ever looks at the world with pristine eyes. Para. 5: Preliminary propositions to be accepted before the study of custom can be profitable: any scientific study requires that there be no preferential weighting of one or another of the items in the series it selects for its consideration.Section 3 (para. 6): Emphasis on the need to avoid biased approach in culture studies.Step 4 Language points Words and expressions1. unique: adj. being the only one of its kind; without an equal or equivalent; unparalleled; unusual; extraordinary;E.g. the unique existing example of Donnes handwriting That building is unique because all the others like it were destroyed. 2. aberrant: adj. deviating from the proper or expected course; changed from what is normal or expected; unusual; E.g. a rocket on an aberrant course aberrant behavior under the influence of drugs;aberration: n. u (lit) a deviation from the proper or expected course;(fig) stray away from the right path; from what is normal; E.g. stealing chocolate in a moment of aberration3. gamut: n. 1) a complete range or extent;2) (music) the entire series of recognized notes; E.g. a face that expressed a gamut of emotions, from rage to peaceful contentmentthe compete gamut of the spectrum4. pristine: adj. 1) remaining in a pure state; uncorrupted by civilization; primitive; of early times; 2) remaining free from dirt or decay; cleanE.g. Who would go back to the pristine simplicity of Anglo-Saxon days?pristine mountain snow5. pure: adj. free of dirt, defilement, or pollution clean; containing nothing inappropriate or extraneous;E.g. When the snow began to melt, it lost its pure whiteness.6. edit: v. to modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable; to alter to bring about conformity;7. institutions: n. 1) a custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society; long-established laws, customs or practice; E.g. Giving presents on Christmas is an institution.2) u the act of instituting or being instituted;E.g. the institution of customs3) an established organization or foundation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, or culture the building or buildings housing such an organization buildings or organization; E.g. academic institution8. probe: 1) n. the act of exploring or searching; an investigation into unfamiliar matters or questionable activities; a penetrating inquiry; E.g. a congressional probe into price fixing2) v. to conduct an exploratory investigation; search; to delve into; (journalistic use) investigate or examine thoroughly (somebodys thought, the cause of something)E.g. probe a matter to the bottom9. as: 1) followed by a predicative; E.g. as in contrast with2) introducing adverbial clauses of manner, i.e. “in the way in which”; E.g. Do it as I do it. Leave it as it is.10. vernacular 1) n. language or dialect of a country or district; E.g. the vernaculars of the U.S.A2) adj. (of a word or language) of the country in questionE.g. a vernacular poet11. no more than: only; exactly; just; E.g. It is no more than a beginning.12. thousandth: adj., n. 1) the ordinal number matching the number 1,000 in a series; 2) one of 1,000 equal partsthousandfold adj., adv. a thousand times;13. over against: 1) opposite to; in contrast with; 2) be compared to; E.g. the quality of this product ov